TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee and income disclosed therein and also allowed capitalization with respect of amount invested in M/s. Luncar Finance Pvt Ltd. From the above, it is very clear that addition made by the AO towards security premium in the hands of the assessee was already subjected to tax in the hands of M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd, which is evident from the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission. Therefore, further addition towards very same income cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. CIT(A) rightly deleted addition - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.: 231/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2023 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceedings. 3.1 The ld.CIT(A) has admitted fresh evidence in the form of copy of application filed by M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. before Settlement Commission which was not produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 3.2 Under sub rule (3) to rule 46A, a condition was imposed that such evidence shall not be taken into account by the CIT(A) unless the AO was confronted with the same. The order of the ld.CIT(A) violates Rule 46A. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant M/s. Luncar Finance Pvt Ltd, filed it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al year relevant to assessment year 2009-10, the assessee has issued fresh share capital with a huge premium. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences including explanation for issue of shares on premium. Since, the assessee could not explain the premium on issue of shares, the Assessing Officer has made addition towards share premium u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has challenged serving of notice by affixing to official premises and argued that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 is beyond the due date prescribed under the Act and consequently, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no further reason to agitate this matter any further considering the fact that the incomes have been admitted by the assessee group itself. In view of the cumulative facts circumstances as above, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed on both technical grounds as regards incorrect assumption of the jurisdiction as well as on merits of the case. 5. The ld. CIT-DR, Shri. R Mohan Reddy, submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer towards share premium u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act by admitting additional evidence contrary to Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate, referring to application filed by the assessee before the Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h share capital of M/s. Luncar Finance Pvt Ltd. The Income-tax Settlement Commission, Chennai Benches vide their order dated 20.06.2019, accepted application filed by the assessee and income disclosed therein and also allowed capitalization with respect of amount invested in M/s. Luncar Finance Pvt Ltd. From the above, it is very clear that addition made by the Assessing Officer towards security premium in the hands of the assessee was already subjected to tax in the hands of M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd, which is evident from the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission. Therefore, further addition towards very same income cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
